accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Josh Elser (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4156) Tunable replication frequency
Date Wed, 02 Mar 2016 22:07:18 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4156?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15176574#comment-15176574
] 

Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-4156:
--------------------------------------

To expand some more (for my own benefit): I was initially considering using offset into WAL
entries as the tracking point, however, it might be more consistent to use the same last compaction
after the last start (same logic wal recovery uses). I'm not sure if we need to do that for
the same consistency reasons that WAL does, but it might be a little more natural (the flow
inside the tabletserver is already set up to record the flushID) than just offset tracking
into the WALs .

> Tunable replication frequency
> -----------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-4156
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4156
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core
>    Affects Versions: 1.7.1
>            Reporter: William Slacum
>             Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> Currently, replication happens when a write ahead log file is closed. The only parameter
to toggle when this event occurs is write ahead log size, and is only applicable to the tablet
servers themselves.
> By default this means that when replication happens isn't tied to the table it is configured
on, but also exogenous factors such as total write load and failures. If a system receives
~100MB/day/TServer, and the WAL size is its default 1GB, it will take 10 days for any replication
event to occur. Another possibility is that an unreplicated table is receiving many writes,
which will cause more frequent replication events, but proportionally the work will involve
less data for the table being replicated.
> I don't have a specific implementation in mind, but I'd like to see a solution that involves
isolating the work down to specific table events such as time-since-last-replication and data-added-since-last-replication.
> [~elserj] has had some ideas about doing things incrementally within WAL files (ie, replicating
between two sync points) that can also help with this. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message